Does the NIV Mistranslate "Homosexual" to Attack Gays?

Question: Why does the NIV use the word "homosexual"?  I've heard the original word doesn't mean anything like "homosexual".  Is this evidence of a scheme of translators trying to attack gays through mistranslation?  What DOES the original text say regarding homosexuality?

Answer: Thanks for the question.  To begin an answer, I’ll cut and paste a portion of our white paper on homosexuality that deals directly with word meanings in the relevant passages.  You can email me and I'll gladly send the whole doc.

"I CORINTHIANS 6:9-11 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV)

There is again, no special place given to homosexuality.  It is the same as any other sin. 

However, is Paul even talking about homosexuality per se, or something else?  He uses two key Greek words.  The first, “Malakos” here translated ‘male prostitutes’ means literally “the soft”, sometimes translated as “effeminate.”  This is a reference to men and boys who allowed themselves to be used homosexually.^[1]  Or “men who feminize themselves to attract male sex partners”^[2]

The second word "Arsenokoitai" is a compound word, "arsen" which means “male” and "koitai" which means "bed" or "lying" - a word with clear sexual connotations.  So the straightforward meaning is men who bed or lie with other males.  Or “a male homosexual, or sodomite.”^[3]  Another lexicon defines the word as “one who lies with a male as with a female.”^[4] Strong's concordance defines the word as simply “a sodomite.”^[5]

I cite several lexical sources here for some authority on the meaning of these two words, since much ado has been made of their translation.  In fact, a lot of very late scholarship uses the ambiguity and uniqueness of these words to suggest that they do not refer to homosexuality at all, or at least not to homosexual practices per se.

Arguments are made by liberal scholars that “arsenokoitai” refers only to male prostitutes or that “malakos” refers perhaps to a slave boy kept for homosexual purposes – a common Greek practice (the implication being that Paul has nothing to say about male on male sex in general.)

But upon inspection, the two words side by side leave little doubt that Paul’s meaning is that homosexual practice is intrinsically wrong, not merely wrong because of the age, slave status, idolatrous context, or exchange of money between the participants.

In fact, “malakos” has a corresponding Latin term ("molles") which Philo uses to describe effeminate males who desire penetration by men.  Apparently Philo’s (and other ancients') problem with such men did not center on their exploitation of others, age difference, or acts of prostitution, but rather, around their attempted erasure of the masculine stamp given them by God/nature^[6].  And if this term only refers to boys (or girls) abused sexually by older men as claimed, one wonders why they are on the list of the "wicked" at all, and not the exploiters alone.

"Arsenokoitai" is likely a word invented by Paul ^[7].  It appears nowhere in literature before this usage in 1 Corinthians.  But that doesn’t mean Paul’s meaning is unknowable.  The structure of the word (man + bed/lying), clearly links it with the Mosaic restriction in Leviticus 18:22 – “do not lie with a man as with a woman.”  In fact, the Greek version of the Old Testament in use by early Rabbis used the exact same terms to translate the Hebrew.  In Paul's Rabbinical circles these very words were used to stress God’s absolute prohibition on homosexual behavior, in contrast to the very lenient attitudes of  the Greco-Roman period^[8].

We can sympathize with those who suggest that any translation (such as the NIV) which render these words using “homosexual” may be misleading.  Clearly “homosexual” is a loaded modern term (unavailable to Paul in the 1st century) and it doesn’t convey the literal meaning of the words Paul uses.  In our context the word “homosexual” often carries a heavy connection to modern understandings about orientation. Thus a person may feel this passage is condemning something beyond our control  whereas these two words are actually condemning sexual practices not orientations. 

Perhaps other, better English words might be used to render Paul’s terms, but it would be hard to be as explicit as Paul without being vulgar.  He could hardly be more clear about what he's condemning: the two roles involved in male homosexual sex:  The first (malakos) gives himself to be used by the second (arsenokoitai).  Those who engage in such practice, willfully repudiating God’s good creation design, along with ALL those involved in ANY unrepented pattern of sin (see the expansive list), are not eligible for the Kingdom."

So like many other instances of translation, "homosexual" is a fair but imperfect rendering of Paul’s meaning into English.  It might be that the evolution of attitudes about homosexuality requires more precision - not to conform the meaning to modern sensibilities, but to better communicate the meaning to changing modern sensibilities.

For example, as stated in our paper, if "homosexual" is taken to include the psychological condition of homosexual orientation, then that does mean that "homosexual offender" (NIV) is not a good translation.  In fact, if that's how people take it, "homosexual" is misleading and harmful.  Reason being it would convey that to be homosexually oriented is the offense in God's eyes, and yet no Scripture ever addresses orientation. Paul here addresses behavior.  And the behavior being addressed is clear, even if the Greek words have some ambiguity.

So, if we wanted to get more literal and stay away from any allusion to orientation, we could easily ditch the term "homosexual" (since Paul surely didn’t know that term).  A very rough paraphrase of "malakos" might be: "a man who acts like a woman in sex acts".  The second word is best understood simply as "those men who sleep with other men."  Of course you can see what that gains in accuracy it clearly loses in economy.

So while the use of "homosexual" is debatable, what is not is that any accurate transference of these terms into English cannot escape referring to homosexual practices per se.  The context is clear this can't be a reference merely to pedophilia (Paul did have that term available to him - chose not to use it) or temple prostitution (when the Bible wants to address that, it does so explicitly, not implicitly – Deut 23:17-18).  Instead we have here a simple reference to all male homosexual activity (Romans 1 deals with female homosexual activity.)  It is clearly condemned as sin - not conforming to God's good design - along with other things like greed and slander.

But the hope of redemption for all "the wicked" is made perfectly clear.  You can put Yours Truly on that list, of those who were in that category until they were "washed, sanctified and justified".  What amazing hope for all!
<sup>_____________________________________

[1]</sup> Arndt, William R. and Gingrich, F. Wilbur, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, University of Chicago Press, 1957, pg 489.
^[2]  Gagnon, “Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice?, pg 10.

^[3]Ibid, p 109.

^[4]Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pg 75.
^[5]Strong, James, Strong’s Greek-Hebrew Dictionary, Riverside Book and Bible House, pg 16.
^[6] Gagnon, “Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice?, pg 10
^[7] Ibid, pg 10.
^[8] Ibid, pg 10.

Was Nostradamus a Prophet?

QUESTION: What’s your take on Nostradamus?  Was he a prophet?

RESPONSE:  First, we should ask what a prophet is.  Every culture and worldview system has its predictors of the future, because there’s always a market for prognostication.  Why?  Well, if you could truly get accurate knowledge of the future, it would have a lot of handy applications:  Comfort, direction, betting advice.

But being a Jewish prophet was different than your run of the mill shaman, witch-doctor, soothsayer, tea-leaf or palm reader.  They all claimed to know the future through trances, or reading the flights of birds or the entrails of animals or the position of stars.

Thus the pagan had no objective basis for confidence, it was all mystery and fatalism.  The Jew on the hand shunned necromancy, and spiritism of all kinds because only if their omniscient, eternal God was real, was real prophecy a confident possibility.

Thus Isaiah will say:

Isa 8:19-20: When they say to you, “Consult the spirits of the dead and the spiritists who chirp and mutter,” shouldn’t a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living?

Of course, the Jewish approach to prophecy means God is in the driver’s seat.  He reveals what he wants, not what WE want.  And God’s purpose in revealing the future was always for courting or building relationship with us.  Meanwhile, the pagans thought clairvoyance was about reading the predetermined script of Fate, for no larger purpose than personal gain or banal curiosity.

Despite all these differences in the source of prophecy, the real proof, as they say, is in the pudding.  Which mode of prophecy has proven trustworthy?  Here too we see a difference in biblical prophecy, because the Jewish Scriptures are not at all fuzzy about the accuracy standard:  100%.

"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy 18:22).

A lot of “prophets” (I’m looking at you National Enquirer) would have lost all credibility (and income) if we applied this standard.  This standard made the ancient Jews a thinking, non-superstitious people.  Fear of the occult was pervasive back then, but God specifically wants to allay these fears with a simple standard:  prophecies, in order to be verified, must be specific and detailed enough to be shown undeniably true.

Now, with this standard in mind, how does the Bible fare against Nostradamus?  I’ll list just a few predictive prophesies made by Bible prophets that were fulfilled.  Then we’ll see how Nostradamus compares.

• Ezekiel 26 predicted, 250 years in advance, how Alexander would conquer Tyre.
• Psalm 22:16 would predict that the Messiah would be pieced in hands and feet – clearly alluding to a mode of execution (crucifixion) that hadn’t been invented when the prophecy was made.
• Predicting Messiah would not decay in the tomb (Ps 16).
• Predicting Messiah would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14).
• Predicting Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).
• Predicting Messiah would be a Nazarene (Isaiah 11:1), and many others.

Of course Jesus shows up fulfilling all these predictions, but then he ALSO makes prophetic predictions himself – the most startling of which was predicting the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple within a generation of his life.  In 70 AD the Roman general Titus leveled the city fulfilling Jesus word to the letter. (Luke 21:5-6)

Now, let’s turn to Nostradamus.  Is there anything like this kind of detail with specific fulfillment?  What follows is a few examples that show either Nostradamus is so vague and unclear that his accuracy could never be assessed confidently OR when he is very specific and clear, he is proven false.

For example, this passage is believed by some to foretell the 9/11 attacks:

"In the year of the new century and nine months, From the sky will come a great King of Terror. The sky will burn at forty-five degrees. Fire approaches the great new city."

The problems with this “prophecy” are numerous.

• First, this isn’t taken from a single section, but rather it’s a collection of statements culled from different sections to make a more cohesive sounding prediction that is made to match an historical event.
• Second, terror coming from the sky matches 9/11, but not this reference to a King.  The “king” (Bin Laden?) stayed home that day. 
• Third, it’s not buildings that burn for Nostradamus, but rather the sky that burns at “forty-five degrees”.  What does that mean?  No one knows. 
• Finally, New York City has the word “new” in its title, but in 2001 it was the oldest city in the country.  In what sense is it new?

We can admit that collected artificially in this way, there’s some similarity - albeit very figurative - to 9/11.  But taking these bits of Nostradamus out of context (as if everything he wrote was somehow magically predictive, but in a way unconnected his own flow of thought or logic) strains credibility to the breaking point.

Another example:

The young lion will overcome the old one,
On the field of war in single combat:
He will burst his eyes in a cage of gold,
Two fleets one, then to die, a cruel death.

Allegedly, this has reference to the death of France’s king, Henry II.  He was wounded in a jousting contest in 1557; he died ten days later. Well, here’s what actually happened:

Only six years separated the ages of Henry and his opponent in the tournament; it was hardly a contest between the young and the old (Henry was only forty). The accident occurred during a friendly sporting event, not on a battlefield.  There is no evidence that Henry was wearing a gilded visor (cage) of gold. Also, the king’s eyes were not damaged; a splinter from the lance pierced his skull and entered the brain. The reference to “two fleets” is utterly unconnected.

These are just two examples of how extremely vague Nostradamus' writings are. This provides an opportunity for wild speculation and "retroactive clairvoyance."  Many have made him a genius by squeezing modern events into the very large openings provided by his imprecision and ambiguity.

However, there is one instance when Nostradamus was less vague and refreshingly clear. In his preface to “The Centuries” – a letter to his son – Nostradamus finally writes in unambiguous terms:

From the time I am writing this [1 March 1555], before 177 years, 3 months and 11 days, by pestilence, long famine, and wars, and more still by inundations, the world between this day and that, before and after, shall be diminished, and its population so reduced that there will hardly be hands enough to attend to agriculture, and the lands will be left as long without culture as they have been under tillage.

The deadline for this prediction is easily tallied:

             Day      Month     Year

Start     1            3              1555
Add      11          3                177

Total     12          6              1732

June 12, 1732.

The truly apocalyptic destruction and depopulation predicted here is very specific and the effects very long-lasting.  So we can say with confidence that none of this has occurred and yet the deadline passed by long before the United States became a nation.

So, when I compare Nostradamus to the incredible line of specific and fulfilled prophecy of Scripture, I find him untrustworthy.  And it leads to this question – why would we want to trust him?  Especially knowing that we have the markers of authentic prophecy in Scripture affirmed and crowned by the long-predicted Christ.